In April 2013, Akiva and Amanda Zablocki noticed that their eight-month-old son, Idan, was breathing strangely. Probably just a garden-variety virus, the pediatrician told them, one that just needed to run its course. For the next two weeks, they watched and waited—“he played, ate, and seemed perfectly normal,” Akiva wrote on the family’s blog, “except for his respiratory rate”—but when Idan’s energy level seemed to drop, they took him back for another look and an X-ray.

This time, the doctor sent them straight to the hospital, where Idan was admitted to the pediatric intensive-care unit and given oxygen to help him breathe. It was a few more days before doctors identified what was wrong with his lungs: PCP, a fungal pneumonia typically seen in AIDS patients. A test for the HIV virus was negative, and Idan was placed on a ventilator as doctors struggled to figure out why an otherwise healthy baby had an infection most commonly found in people with immune deficiencies.

The answer, they soon discovered, was hyper IgM syndrome, a genetic disease that affects just two out of every million people and renders the body’s immune defenses useless against even the mildest of infections. Immediately, the Zablockis’ lives became a flurry of financial calculations: Idan would need weekly immunoglobin infusions, which would cost thousands of dollars a month, until he could undergo a bone-marrow transplant, the only known cure for the condition. The transplant itself would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars; if it was unsuccessful, he would need the infusions for the rest of his life. And because daycare posed too much of a risk for Idan’s fragile immune system, Akiva would quit his job to stay home and take care of him, leaving the family with one income to cover it all.

It was a battle to get their insurance to cover Idan’s infusions, Akiva said; ultimately, they were able to get coverage for the treatment he would receive at home, but not the infusions in the hospital. And when the family chose a hospital to do Idan’s bone-marrow transplant after months of research, they faced another fight. The hospital in Seattle—across the country from their home in Manhattan—used treosulfan, a drug that didn’t have as many side effects but was still in clinical trials in the U.S. Eventually, he said, the family’s insurance company agreed to part of cover the procedure, but they were still overwhelmed by the amount they owed beyond what insurance would pay for—and knew that more bills were coming.

So they turned to the Internet.

In May, a month after Idan’s diagnosis, Amanda and Akiva launched a page on YouCaring.com, which describes itself as a fundraising website for “personal and charitable causes.”

“We need your help raising funds to enable us to make sure that, no matter what happens to us, Idan has the best possible medical care, a successful transplant, and enough funds to cover the medical costs he will incur along the way,” they wrote. “We know we cannot do this alone.” Their goal was $250,000.

Within the first two weeks or so, Akiva said, “we raised almost $50,000 or $60,000, just from family and friends.”

Then, in July, The New York Daily Newspublished a story on the Zablockis’ fundraiser; over the course of the next week, CBS, ABC, and NBC all ran stories on the family’s struggle to pay for Idan’s treatment. The money began pouring in even faster.

“At that point, there were a lot of people donating that we didn’t know who they were,” Akiva said. The media attention “was a huge bump as far as the legitimacy, because there are so many medical fundraisers out there.”

Which sometimes made him and Amanda wonder: Why had Idan’s been the one to catch on? “We were always trying to figure that one out,” he said. “Over those few weeks when there was the most attention, we were like, ‘Why is everybody so interested?’”

* * *

Sites like YouCaring, GoFundMe, and Indiegogo Life cumulatively host thousands of pages set up by people looking for help with medical expenses, from cancer treatment to in-vitro fertilization (IVF). These crowdfunding pages are a place for family and friends to help out and receive updates on the status of a loved one’s health—but they’re also a place where strangers can log on and make a donation to someone they’ve never met before.

Who, out of all the people who have shared their tragedy on the Internet, can entice donors to click?

“I think we’re seeing the emergence of what we sometimes call peer-to-peer charitable giving,” said Leonard Lee, the head of communications for YouCaring. “So the notion that you’re not just giving to an organization that then decides how it’s going to use the funds. [Donors] can say, ‘I’m giving to this specific person, I identify with their need.’”

To choose one, though, also means to choose it over all the others.

Donating to a medical crowdfunding campaign requires donors to be at once more intimate with and more judgmental of the recipients. At its most basic and most callous, the act of giving boils down something not unlike comparison shopping: Who, out of all the people who have shared their tragedy on the Internet, is the most deserving of money? And, before that, who can entice donors to click?

As medical crowdfunding has become more popular, so too has the idea of its so-called “perfect victim,” said Margaret Moon, a bioethicist and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University: the person whose inability to pay for their care came down to sheer bad luck—and bad coverage, if they had any insurance at all. “They’d done everything right, they’d explored all the possibilities and were still left short,” she said. “The people donating to these sites don’t know if somebody’s made a request because they just couldn’t figure out their insurance, or because their insurance failed them. Wouldn’t you be more willing to donate to someone who had played out their insurance?”

The Zablockis, by this definition, are the perfect crowdfunding campaign—but before people could read their story and learn the ins and outs of their struggles with insurance, they had to be drawn in. Akiva had another theory for why Idan’s story had resonated so strongly: “He’s a really cute kid,” he said. It’s true—the family’s blog is filled with photos of Idan, plump and cheerful, even in the pictures taken in the hospital room.

“[When] he was on a ventilator and couldn’t breathe on his own and was restrained to the bed, he was smiling and engaged and his eyes were open and he was communicating,” Amanda added. “I think it spoke to people.”

Before the donors can choose who to fund, the sites themselves make a choice about who will be allowed to ask for funding at all. In September 2014, GoFundMe made headlines after it shut down the fundraising page of a woman named Bailey, who was collecting money for an abortion. She had no insurance, Bailey wrote on her page, and complications from a “rough, unplanned, and unexpected” pregnancy had left her unable to keep a job.

"We do not permit campaigns that could be considered divisive. Abortion would be a good example."

After removing Bailey’s fundraiser (she was allowed to keep the money that had been donated up until that point), the site issued a list of causes that would be prohibited going forward, including “directly funding an abortion (human or animal).”

“As we scale, it’s important that GoFundMe is used in ways that our community and company can be proud of,” the company said in a statement. (Lee, of YouCaring, said his site has a similar policy: “We do not permit crowdfunding campaigns that could be considered divisive to our community,” he said. “Abortion would be a good example.”)

“GoFundMe is a private company, and like Chik-fil-a or Starbucks, it can do pretty much whatever it wants,” Caitlin Dewey wrote in The Washington Post shortly after the new guidelines were released. “But it’s a fascinating departure for a site that previously billed itself as a platform for literally everyone and everything.”

* * *

When Akiva and Amanda began their search for a hospital to perform Idan’s bone-marrow transplant, Akiva said, almost all the ones they visited “would provide us with these pamphlets saying, ‘Transplant is very expensive, it can cost over a million dollars, we recommend fundraising … It was actually a little bit comical, because they recommended bake sales and local church or synagogue fundraisers.”

For them, crowdfunding was the clearly superior alternative: Not only could it bring in more money than a synagogue bake sale, it could also allow Idan’s story to travel beyond their immediate social network. On the Internet, their cause could become unbound from where they lived and who they knew.

“We never said, ‘Please donate.’ We always said, ‘Please like and share,” Amanda said. “At the end of the day, a person who’s donated a fixed amount and then gone away has donated that fixed amount. But a person who doesn’t donate anything but spreads it to 10 other people, and they spread it to 10 other people … The sum of those donations is going to be more, and the sum of the information [spread] is going to be more.”

But the Internet’s potential to relieve the burden of medical bills isn’t distributed equally, said Elizabeth Yuko, a bioethicist at Fordham University’s Center for Ethics Education: “In order to create these profiles, you have to have access to a computer, you have to be relatively tech-savvy.”

"In order to create these profiles, you have to have access to a computer, you have to be relatively tech-savvy."

“If we use crowdsourcing for healthcare costs as a way to replace what a good healthcare system might do, then we’re really creating a new health disparity,” Moon agreed. But to her, the most pressing ethical question surrounding medical crowdfunding is not the inequalities it illuminates, or how donors choose who to fund, or how sites choose who to host—it’s why the practice has become necessary in the first place.

“There’s a concern that it will become a pop-off valve for a healthcare system that’s not doing its job.” she said. “If someone’s raising money to cover the cost of cancer treatment, the question that raises on the other side is, why is our healthcare system not paying for necessary care?”

It’s a fair question, but it’s also one that people like the Zablockis—and Bailey—have little time for.

* * *

When people open fundraising pages on YouCaring, “We recommend that they be open and honest,” Lee said. “People will relate to it.”

But the opposite of openness, on the Internet, is privacy—and emphasizing the former means that concerns for the latter must be abandoned. A campaign’s success can depend on how much it divulges of a person’s health history, financial situation, and even genetic makeup, information that will live online long after the fundraising ends.

For families using crowdfunding to pay for IVF or other fertility treatments, the concern may be magnified: “There will be children whose personal information is out there on the Internet already, and the parents won’t have the control they would normally have in that situation,” Yuko said. “It’s basically the details of their conception.”

For the Zablockis, the tradeoff was worth it. Their page raised around $250,000, enough to cover Idan’s transplant and some related medical expenses, and connected them with other parents around the world whose children had hyper IgM. Their advice to these families is the same as Lee’s: “We’ve told other families to be honest, tell your personal story, don’t shy away from telling the truth and being very honest about the struggle,” Akiva said.

Their own is still ongoing—Idan’s bone-marrow transplant turned out to be unsuccessful. With about a third of the money left, the family is considering another transplant. Without it, Amanda said, Idan faces “a shortened life where he’s going to be in and out of the hospital.” The average lifespan for hyper IgM patients is 24 years.

But they’re unsure at this point whether they would re-open the fundraiser. “It’s hard to say … We’ve learned a tremendous amount going forward as far as the arguments we need to make to the insurance company, the appeals, and it doesn’t feel quite as overwhelming as it did before,” Amanda said. “We feel like we’re now in a position to do what we have to do.”

About the Author

Most Popular

In the landscape where Mad Max: Fury Road was filmed, a scientist is trying to understand a natural phenomenon that has eluded explanation for decades.

One evening earlier this spring, German naturalist Norbert Jürgens strayed from his expedition in the Namib Desert. He walked away from his campsite beside Leopard Rock, a huge pile of schist slabs stacked like left-over roofing tiles, and into a vast plain ringed with red-burnished hills. He had 20 minutes of light left before sunset, and he intended to use them.

This next part may sound like a reenactment from a nature documentary, but trust me: This is how it went down.

Off by himself, Jürgens dropped down to his knees. He sank his well-tanned arms in the sand up to the elbows. As he rooted around, he told me later, he had a revelation.

At the time, I was watching from the top of Leopard Rock, which offered a bird’s-eye view of both Jürgens and his expedition’s quarry. Across the plain, seemingly stamped into its dry, stubbly grass, were circles of bare ground, each about the size of an aboveground pool. Jürgens, a professor at the University of Hamburg, was digging—and pondering—in one of these bare patches.

The class divide is already toxic, and is fast becoming unbridgeable. You’re probably part of the problem.

1. The Aristocracy Is Dead …

For about a week every year in my childhood, I was a member of one of America’s fading aristocracies. Sometimes around Christmas, more often on the Fourth of July, my family would take up residence at one of my grandparents’ country clubs in Chicago, Palm Beach, or Asheville, North Carolina. The breakfast buffets were magnificent, and Grandfather was a jovial host, always ready with a familiar story, rarely missing an opportunity for gentle instruction on proper club etiquette. At the age of 11 or 12, I gathered from him, between his puffs of cigar smoke, that we owed our weeks of plenty to Great-Grandfather, Colonel Robert W. Stewart, a Rough Rider with Teddy Roosevelt who made his fortune as the chairman of Standard Oil of Indiana in the 1920s. I was also given to understand that, for reasons traceable to some ancient and incomprehensible dispute, the Rockefellers were the mortal enemies of our clan.

The text reflected not only the president’s signature syntax, but also the clash between his desire for credit and his intuition to walk away.

Donald Trump’s approach to North Korea has always been an intensely personal one—the president contended that his sheer force of will and negotiating prowess would win the day, and rather than use intermediaries, he planned for a face-to-face meeting, with himself and Kim Jong Un on either side of a table.

So Trump’s notice on Thursday that he was canceling the June 12 summit in Singapore was fitting. It arrived in the form of a letter that appears to have been written by the president himself. The missive features a Trumpian mix of non sequiturs, braggadocio, insults, flattery, and half-truths. Whether the dramatic letter marks the end of the current process or is simply a negotiating feint, it matches the soap-operatic series of events that proceeded it. Either way, it displays the ongoing conflict between Trump’s desire for pageantry and credit and his longstanding dictum that one must be willing to walk away from the negotiating table.

The 9-year-old has built a huge following with profane Instagram posts, but the bravado of “the youngest flexer of the century” masks a sadder tale about fame and exploitation.

In mid-February, a mysterious 9-year-old by the name of Lil Tay began blowing up on Instagram.

“This is a message to all y’all broke-ass haters, y’all ain't doing it like Lil Tay,” she shouts as she hops into a red Mercedes, hands full of wads of cash. “This is why all y’all fucking haters hate me, bitch. This shit cost me $200,000. I’m only 9 years old. I don’t got no license, but I still drive this sports car, bitch. Your favorite rapper ain’t even doing it like Lil Tay.”

Referring to herself as “the youngest flexer of the century,” Lil Tay quickly garnered a fan base of millions, including big name YouTubers who saw an opportunity to capitalize on her wild persona. In late January, RiceGum, an extremely influential YouTube personality dedicated an entire roast video to Lil Tay.

A short—and by no means exhaustive—list of the open questions swirling around the president, his campaign, his company, and his family.

President Trump speculated on Tuesday that “if” the FBI placed a spy inside his campaign, that would be one of the greatest scandals in U.S. history. On Wednesday morning on Twitter, the “if” dropped away—and Trump asserted yesterday’s wild surmise as today’s fact. By afternoon, a vast claque of pro-Trump talkers repeated the president’s fantasies and falsehoods in their continuing project to represent Donald Trump as an innocent victim of a malicious conspiracy by the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice.

The president’s claims are false, but they are not fantasies. They are strategies to fortify the minds of the president’s supporters against the ever-mounting evidence against the president. As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz show in their new book about impeachment, an agitated and committed minority can suffice to protect a president from facing justice for even the most strongly proven criminality.

As recently as the 1950s, possessing only middling intelligence was not likely to severely limit your life’s trajectory. IQ wasn’t a big factor in whom you married, where you lived, or what others thought of you. The qualifications for a good job, whether on an assembly line or behind a desk, mostly revolved around integrity, work ethic, and a knack for getting along—bosses didn’t routinely expect college degrees, much less ask to see SAT scores. As one account of the era put it, hiring decisions were “based on a candidate having a critical skill or two and on soft factors such as eagerness, appearance, family background, and physical characteristics.”

The 2010s, in contrast, are a terrible time to not be brainy. Those who consider themselves bright openly mock others for being less so. Even in this age of rampant concern over microaggressions and victimization, we maintain open season on the nonsmart. People who’d swerve off a cliff rather than use a pejorative for race, religion, physical appearance, or disability are all too happy to drop the s‑bomb: Indeed, degrading others for being “stupid” has become nearly automatic in all forms of disagreement.

The Americans and the North Koreans were all set for a historic meeting. Then they started talking about Libya.

Of all the countries that might have acted as a spoiler for the summit in Singapore between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un—China, Russia, Japan, the United States and North Korea themselves—the one that doomed it was unexpected. It isn’t even involved in North Korea diplomacy and is locateda long 6,000 miles away from the Korean Peninsula. It’s Libya.

Yet Libya ought to have been top of mind. It’s notoriously difficult to determine what motivates the strategic choices and polices of North Korea’s leaders, but among the factors that has been evident for some time is Kim Jong Un’s fear of ending up like Muammar al-Qaddafi. The Libyan strongman was pulled from a drainage pipe and shot to death by his own people following a U.S.-led military intervention during the Arab Spring in 2011. The North Korean government views its development of nuclear weapons—a pursuit Qaddafi abandoned in the early 2000s, when his nuclear program was far less advanced than North Korea’s, in exchange for the easing of sanctions and other promised benefits—as its most reliable shield against a hostile United States that could very easily inflict a similar fate on Kim. We know this because the North Korean government has repeatedly said as much. “The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programs of their own accord,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency observed in 2016.

The bombastic legal adviser to Stormy Daniels is taking cues from the era of O.J. Simpson and Monica Lewinsky.

On cable news these days, there are very few people who have approached President Trump’s ubiquity. In fact, there is only one, and his name is Michael Avenatti. (Stormy who?)

Avenatti is not the first attorney to understand how the publicity game is played. Litigators are often like this: brash, aggressive, and sophisticated media manipulators. But Avenatti is the first celebrity lawyer of the Trump age, and it’s for that reason that he has become ultra-famous: Everything to do with Trump becomes, for good or ill, a star. And so it is with Avenatti, who in the public imagination has become not just “Stormy Daniels’s lawyer Michael Avenatti,” but simply “Michael Avenatti,” and appears to live inside your TV set.

The billionaire’s Twitter tirade was so ill-informed it led to a subtweet from his former head of communications.

Elon Musk’s screed against the media began with a story about Tesla.

“The holier-than-thou hypocrisy of big media companies who lay claim to the truth, but publish only enough to sugarcoat the lie, is why the public no longer respects them,” the entrepreneur tweeted Wednesday, with a link to a post on the website Electrek. The author of that post criticized news coverage of recent Tesla crashes and delays in the production of the Model 3, calling it “obsessive” and saying there’s been a “general increase of misleading clickbait.”

Musk followed that tweet with an hours-long tirade in which he suggested that journalists write negative stories about Tesla to get “max clicks” and “earn advertising dollars or get fired,” blamed the press for the election of President Donald Trump, and polled users on whether he should create a website that rates “the core truth” of articles and tracks “the credibility score” of journalists, which he would consider naming Pravda, like the Soviet state-run, propaganda-ridden news agency.

The president sent a terse note to North Korea’s leader, citing “the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement.”

It was going to be the first meeting between an American president and a North Korean leader in history—an audacious effort to resolve the crisis over North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. But on Thursday—after days of bitter back-and-forth between the United States and North Korea over how to approach denuclearization, with a North Korean official threatening a “nuclear-to-nuclear showdown” with the U.S. even as the North Korean government destroyed a nuclear test site as a show of good faith—the White House abruptly announced that the June 12 summit in Singapore would not take place.

The news came in a letter from Donald Trump to Kim Jong Un, the full text of which is here:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We greatly appreciate your time, patience, and effort with respect to our recent negotiations and discussions relative to a summit long sought by both parties, which was scheduled to take place on June 12 in Singapore. We were informed that the meeting was requested by North Korea, but that to us is totally irrelevant. I was very much looking forward to being there with you. Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting. Therefore, please let this letter serve to represent that the Singapore summit, for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world, will not take place. You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used.

I felt a wonderful dialogue was building up between you and me, and ultimately, it is only that dialogue that matters. Some day, I look very much forward to meeting you. In the meantime, I want to thank you for the release of the hostages who are now home with their families. That was a beautiful gesture and was very much appreciated.

If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write. The world, and North Korea in particular, has lost a great opportunity for lasting peace and great prosperity and wealth. This missed opportunity is a truly sad moment in history.